This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Food Poverty In The UK Has Reached "Public Health Emergency" Levels
Submitted by Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
This tragic story emanating from the UK just doesn’t seem to go away. Probably because it’s true. The food crisis across the pond first came to my attention in earnest back in October when the Red Cross announced it was set to provide food aid to the UK for the first time since World War II.
The latest twist to this unacceptable saga comes via a letter send by a group of doctors and senior academics from the Medical Research Council and two leading universities to the British Medical Journal calling it a “public healthy emergency” and accusing the government of covering up the problem by delaying a report on the subject.
More from The Independent:
Hunger in Britain has reached the level of a “public health emergency” and the Government may be covering up the extent to which austerity and welfare cuts are adding to the problem, leading experts have said.
In a letter to the British Medical Journal, a group of doctors and senior academics from the Medical Research Council and two leading universities said that the effect of Government policies on vulnerable people’s ability to afford food needed to be “urgently” monitored.
A surge in the number of people requiring emergency food aid, a decrease in the amount of calories consumed by British families, and a doubling of the number of malnutrition cases seen at English hospitals represent “all the signs of a public health emergency that could go unrecognised until it is too late to take preventative action,” they write.
Despite mounting evidence for a growing food poverty crisis in the UK, ministers maintain there is “no robust evidence” of a link between sweeping welfare reforms and a rise in the use of food banks. However, publication of research into the phenomenon, commissioned by the Government itself, has been delayed, amid speculation that the findings may prove embarrassing for ministers.
Chris Mould, chief executive of the Trussell Trust, the largest national food bank provider said that one in three of the 350,000 people who required a food bank hand-out this year were children.
In their letter, Dr Taylor-Robinson, Professor Whitehead and colleagues cite figures recently released by the Government which revealed a surge in the number of malnutrition cases diagnosed at English hospitals since the recession – up from 3,161 in 2008/09 to 5,499 in 2012/13. They also draw attention to reports from the Institute for Fiscal Studies which found a decrease in the number of calories purchased by families, as well as “substitution with unhealthier foods, especially in families with young children”.
Fortunately for the UK, they are blessed with a concentration of oligarchs with supposedly extraordinary capabilities so they should be able to sort this all out in now time. Isn’t that right Boris Johnson?
Full article here.
»
- 23444 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Make a law that the Banksters making millions should be forced to adopt 100 street urchins each..... When you steal from a nation, there should be some downside.....
It's about time for Jesus to return and rehypothicate some chips and fishes.
I guess you can't print food.
it is even now, finally, locally totally fraudulent, sickening, but funny
The British Isles import 40% of the food consumed in country. No wonder they have so many movies about zombie apocalypses.
http://www.imdb.com/list/BOy8UCYqDiw/
British zombie horror films are among the best in the world!!!
People inside the Westminster Bubble are consultants and write the scripts.
.....one look into the staring eyes of Red Ed Miliband tells us all we need to know.
I'm surprised we haven't heard about the poor human beings who eat pet food because that's all they can afford.
This is all you need to know about Britain:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d75nHIZK3f0/UmproyKY2CI/AAAAAAAALIM/HyMP7SA8ad...
So long chaps.
Who cares if they're starving. Thay have "free" health care.
Being a UK resident I can say that this is a highly misleading article. The problem is not being caused by unemployment, it's being caused by under-employment and depressed wages - the majority of the users of the foodbanks are actually in work. The problem is being caused by people being moved from full-time to part-time and having their saleries not only reduced that way, but also the hourly rate cut as well. They still have mortgages to pay and also other debts to service, still have families to feed etc etc.
It is true that a lot of low level employment does not provide to sufficient income to live on. And it is a massive cause of welfare claims, but what is the answer? we seem painted into a corner. Many `jobs` simply do not generate enough profit or income for the employer to pay more, the unskilled UK worker is in competition with the unskilled workers of everywhere else. The large corporate employers of unskilled labour understand this and game the system to their advantage. Take supermarkets: among the most profitable of uk corporations, almost all their staff are on short time / low wages and government subsidised living. Take the welfare away and the government will be unable to continue the illusion of `low unemployment` - employers will slash their headcounts instantly.
But it is not just the big employers. I run a small business (12 employees) and the government subsidy of the low paid is problematic for me. Take `employee 9` - a hardworking man in his mid 20`s with basic education and no high value skills. I pay him £23k a year. He has a mortgage on a small 2 bed house, a wife, one child and a second due next year. Currently he recieves `working family tax credit` this means in effect that he gets an 8k a year welfare subsidy. If I give him a pay rise or bonus, the 8k of welfare shrinks proportionately.
He is not worth £30k a year plus to me, he does not produce a profit for me if I pay him more than £25k. The problem for HIM is I have no incentive to pay him more anyway, I am not competing with other employers for his labour. They too would make zero impact to his household income by offering him a 2 or 3 k payrise to leave my business and join theirs. So unless he was unhappy working in my business for a non financial reason, I do not expect him to leave. I am not forced to compete for his services am I?
But this is unhealthy, it means his motivation can not be relied upon. He does not need to impress me with his efforts in the hope of earning a bit more - it will make no difference. With his basic education I am reluctant to spend money and time upgrading his skills - particularly when business conditions are at best flat.
In a free labour market, unsupported by welfare - I would be fighting for business in a very different marketplace. Some of my less efficient competitors would vanish, my turnover would increase, my ability to have more staff at the top end of our payscale would grow.
I sympathise. I have the same problem. People turning down promotion to team leader or supervisor because the increase in salary is negated by the reduction iin tax credits and as a result they don't see the point in taking more responsibility if they aren't going to be any better off. What makes it even worse is I pay a higher rate than my competitors because I think that I get enough for myself anyway and I am not a greedy person. I could quite easily drop their pay equal to that of other employers and for most of them it would make no difference because of tax credits.
Yeahbut...when this happens to people they are still employed and therefore do not show up in the unemployment figures like so many other unemployed, underemployed and underpaid people. We were assured yesterday by Mr George Wide Boy Osborne that new jobs are being created in our recovering economy like there's no tomorrow. Sadly for many, there is no tomorrow.
I also think some of those collecting from food banks are older people who lived on their savings. These have now been decimated by rising energy costs, inflation running at 2-3 times the official figure and zero interest income. All this equates to rising poverty. Subjects that Osborne carefully failed to mention yesterday and MSM choose to ignore.
He and the whole Coalition are now in election mode.
The alternative is the mindless Marxist, Red Ed Miliband, and stuttering idiot, Ed Balls.
God give me strength!
Here is an article that supports your view and symbolises the Wal mart Economy now AS RAMPANT IN WEST AS ITS TWIN BROTHER THE CHINDIA OUTSOURCING :
What does Lidl's expansion tell us about modern Britain? | Ellie Mae O'Hagan | Comment is free | theguardian.com
I'm not against world trade and technology transfer per se; but I am against the NWO scam that has rushed into it for their OWN wealth and for the collective misery of others both in PRODUCER and CONSUMER countries, as the current world recession is amply showing.
.
We're in a deep recession. Not everyone can feed themselves. Result? Foodbanks and charities are stepping in. Isn't this what's supposed to happen? Is this ' shameful'?
Better than people starving, or worse, "the government" trying to run kitchens or whatever.
Is it not shameful that people who take so much then give this food to a food bank and those donating their time for free so it can NEVER BE EARNED by the recipients to achieve some dignity?
No we are not in a recession, a government that lies says WE ARE NOT!
Actually on the starvation point disagree, force potential starvation and the sheep have a choice to make fight or die and you know what knowing how my government behaves the free food concept is to DENY THE FIGHTt and preserve itself the one and only reason.
The more you dig into the freeby and handout concept the more you realise THE REASON IT IS FREE IS TO PREVENT GOVERNEMNT HAVING TO FIGHT THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION. Look up Mandrake mechanism, used by central banks to extract a level of taxes way past the 40% or so that should cause unrest leads to revolt.
On that point kill all welfare, benefits, NHS and education because then you will be in a position to force government to do what is in the interest of the population for a change. That's the sucker punch and why you end up with sheep as citizens.
Now take a 100 quid and say you only have 10 quid left over after paying all bill etc. then is that not a tax take of 90%? Where is the unrest? Where this level of taxation falls apart is if the welfare, beneftis, NHS and education are not offered free and subjected to this for a lifetime with NO FUTURE. (of course the BASTARDS WILL SUBJECT YOU TO KEYNES ON THAT 10 QUID TOO).
Apply those last points and you will see the UK government is currently rewriting the rules on welfare, benfits, NHS, education all being slowly withdrawn and you are still subjected to 90% tax for a lifetime and those pennies you get will be deflated away.
socialism fixes everything
Red Cross formed circa 1908 and received royal charter to deal wth the poverty suffered by the elderly when there was NO PENSION at that time abd people could not earn and save enough in their lifetime to live on once they were kicked out of the factory. Trick missed here food / land you don't get poverty if you can grow enough to live on.
Poverty in the UK is induced upon the population by its own government, bankers, corps (I exclude SME's on this) to take as much as they want while the peasants die with never enough to go round.
So heres wishing and hoping you a Merry Xmas Cameron, Osborne, IDS and the rest may you get a JFK event over the coming year :-) You can throw in the opposition too because I am a peasant.
As ever you colonials have no conception of what puts the Great in Britain.
It is so simple: No one worth speaking to would consider going hungry. It is just not done!
As ever you colonials have no conception of what puts the Great in Britain.
It is so simple: No one worth speaking to would consider going hungry. It is just not done!
As long as there are food banks available where people can get their food for nothing, more and more people will use them. Sorry, but that is a fact of life in the U.K. where there has been a feeling of entitlement to governmental help from the vast majority of the population for a very long time. What needs to be asked is how mnay of those pleading hunger still have Sky Television accounts plus the latest wide screen sets, and give their children all the latest techie stuff instead of feeding them.
As long as there are food banks available where people can get their food for nothing, more and more people will use them. Sorry, but that is a fact of life in the U.K. where there has been a feeling of entitlement to governmental help from the vast majority of the population for a very long time. What needs to be asked is how mnay of those pleading hunger still have Sky Television accounts plus the latest wide screen sets, and give their children all the latest techie stuff instead of feeding them.
"It is just not done!"
You're welcome, to consider why you didn't go hungry. Or worse. Thankless fuckin' Brits.
http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/War/londonRation.html
The annual irony test ought to be scrapped
Don't mind me; I usually am an avid consumer of fine sardonic Brit wit. Just not in the mood after an all nighter reading up on the Black and Tan War.
Tip. never refresh the page after posting with a Kindle. Sorry :(
I suppose in a possible future with a more international government things like immigration would be decided by a world wide central planning brureau
so eventually the western world will go the wAy of rhodesia or something where the state takes property from wealthy land owners and transfers ownership to connected people
of course the people displaced would be very rebellious but isolated so they could easily be rounded up and dealt with once the legacy wealthy are impoverished there would be no other base of opposition to a NWO
right? I mean total state control of resources for the benefit of everyone is a utopia isn't it ? just have to get those pesky independent rich farmers and business owners to fall in line. wonder what group of scum would ever want to do something like thAt
"Are there no prisons or workhouses?" -- Ebeneezer Scrooge
the solution to this problem is obviously more immigration
Youth looting stores in Cordoba and hunger in England. We can expect a new Faulklands-Malvinas conflict any day now I would think.
Reload said:
"But it is not just the big employers. I run a small business (12 employees) and the government subsidy of the low paid is problematic for me. Take `employee 9` - a hardworking man in his mid 20`s with basic education and no high value skills. I pay him £23k a year. He has a mortgage on a small 2 bed house, a wife, one child and a second due next year. Currently he recieves `working family tax credit` this means in effect that he gets an 8k a year welfare subsidy. If I give him a pay rise or bonus, the 8k of welfare shrinks proportionately."
I highlighted this problem on a different post yesterday and received a lot of negative comments as a result,when the govt starts subsidising things there a lot of unintended consequences that negatively affect the economy,"helping" first time buyers get on the housing ladder - does no such thing,the reason first time buyers cannot afford to get on the property ladder is because housing is too expensive i.e overpriced and the best solution is to allow prices to fall to where there are buyers at those prices,govt subsidies provide a further boost to demand and hence prevent falls in prices. Govt top up benefits for the low paid do not help them either since they distort the marketplace and the market rate for low paid jobs.The example above highlights this perfectly,nobody wants a promotion because they would have all the hassle and responsibility and be no better off.The two examples above with Reload and RedLenin are for decent employers who pay above the minimum and want to pay their staff more, but as we have seen the employee is no better off,and if the employer goes ahead and gives it him any way he is worse off!!
To those employers who do not wish to pay good rates they love the govt benefits as they can always just pay the minimum wage,the taxpayer will pick up the rest.
Another unintended consequence is the birthrate,a working married couple can barely afford one kid let alone two,if they have another kid,their spending power goes down,those who are unemployed can have as many kids as they like and will obtain more money for each one,their spending power goes up.
I work with a bloke who has two kids and has just told them they can no longer go on school trips - because he cannot afford them,the kids of those parents who are unemployed have their trips paid for by the state.So the bloke who is working cannot afford to send his kids on trips but those that don't work have their kids trips paid for by his taxes,does sometihng seem slightly unfair about that?
Getting back to the original topic,a great deal of the problem with hunger in the UK is not insufficient money for food, it is bad parenting,those selfish parents who would rather put smoke,drink and drugs before food,and the fact that an entire generation of people now simply do not know how to cook basic simple meals with fresh ingredients.To them cooking is taking a ready meal from the freezer and putting it in the oven or the microwave or a takeaway.This option is obviously a lot more expensive than buying everything seperately and taking the time and effor to cook it,now that food inflation is really taking off,they have no longer got the money to maintain that lifestyle and are incapapble of learning the cooking basics and as a result are claiming that they are starving.
A sobering view of whats ahead in an era of austerity for the poor and gung ho housing speculation for the rich; landmark of the Cameron economy.
Oh Boris do I like it when you do the "IQ TWERK"...
Britain's sugar rush economy fuelled by house prices masks perilous imbalance | Business | theguardian.com
This quote from that Guardian article says it all: the so-called "UK economic recovery" is extremely unbalanced and mostly exists in the politically fabricated house price boom.
It most certainly is the wrong sort of recovery.
The problem with Thatcherism is that you eventually run out of North Sea oil...
the problem with Thatcherism is that it makes you run out of NSO FASTER than Boris can Twerk...
That's why she gave industry and the workforce a cold bath, hoping it would bring them to their senses.
Deflation bad, inflation good.
Working bad, playing good.
Saving bad, spending good.